AL Supreme Court Pushes Back Against Federal Marriage Tyranny


It is so refreshing to finally see at least one state (Alabama) stand up and push back against the tyranny of the federal government and judicial activists.

From Fox News:

The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the state’s probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, a decision that flies in the face of numerous rulings by federal judges in Alabama and other states across the country who have said banning gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

The all-Republican court sided with a pair of conservative organizations Tuesday in ruling that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t alter the judges’ duty to administer state law, which defines marriage as between only one man and one woman.

Six justices concurred in the 134-page opinion, which wasn’t signed, but the court’s most outspoken opponent of gay marriage, Chief Justice Roy Moore, recused himself.

In 2009, 45 states had DOMA laws or constitutional amendments protecting marriage.

In 2009, 45 states had DOMA laws or constitutional amendments protecting marriage.

This is what ALL state officials (going all the way back to the 2003 judicial activism in Massachusetts when Governor Mitt Romney rolled over and began the domino of counterfeit marriage in America) should have been doing all along, as Leftist tyrants have been usurping the federal and state constitutions, the rule of law, and the will of the people (not to mention usurping the institution of marriage itself). State governors, attorneys general, judges, court officials and anyone else involved in upholding the law in a state should have been telling these judicial activists where they can shove their tyranny (i.e. the same place homosexual activists like to shove things).

As I have pointed out before, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that supports counterfeit marriage.  The U.S. Constitution is completely silent on marriage.  Why?  First, the founders of our country would not have even imagined that a culture could become so insane as to consider that two men sodomizing each other might be considered “marriage.” Further, regulating marriage is not found in the enumerated powers granted to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.  Also, the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (and the people of the vast majority of the states have made it clear that they believe what every civilization in human history has always recognized: that marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman).  Finally, as “Father of the Constitution” James Madison made abundantly clear about the federal government in Federalist No. 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

In our constitutional republic, the legislative branch is empowered to create law, and that law is finalized by the signature of the chief executive of the executive branch.  The judicial branch, as Alexander Hamilton made clear in Federalist No. 78, is not an equal branch of government (note that the legislative branch has ten sections outlining its powers, the executive four, and the judiciary three) and does not have the power to make law: “the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” It can only adjudicate according to the Constitution and the law that has been constitutionally passed. It cannot create law. It cannot make up law. It cannot impose its will as if it were law. We are not an oligarchy; we are a constitutional republic where the legislative branch makes law.

Would you submit to the “authority” of your butcher to pull you over on the road and give you a traffic ticket?  Would you submit to the “authority” of your dentist to cite you for a building code violation in your home? Would you submit to the “authority” of your legislator to put on a judge’s robes and declare you guilty of something?  If so, why?  If not, then why would you submit to the pretended authority of someone who clearly does not have authority to make laws?  The obvious answer is: you wouldn’t! You’d ignore them, if not react somewhat forcefully to their usurpation of authority which did not belong to them.

James Madison recommended this approach to federal usurpation and tyranny in Federalist No. 46:

should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

“Refusal to cooperate with the federal officials who seek to impose their tyrannical will on the states.”  Indeed, we need a whole lot of refusal to cooperate with these tyrants, just as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and their fellow civil rights champions refused to cooperate with the Democrats who were trampling freedom and the Constitution.

Hopefully, the courage and backbone of a few good men in Alabama will help good people in other states to grow some anatomy and start to push back against this tyranny and usurpation. Our nation’s founders would be aghast and ashamed of their posterity for the cowardly way so many of us have behaved.  These actions in Alabama (and hopefully a new and growing number of other states to follow) may yet restore some of the faith of the founders.

Hint: South Dakota governor, attorney general and judges (and legislators), take note: good people expect this kind of leadership of YOU!

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • olguy

    Well Bob, I hope the donors can keep you sustained. Equality for gay folks is coming, you won’t stop it. Too bad about your fear of folks not like you. You have a good one.

    • Bob Ellis

      I have news for you: homosexuals already have equal rights. What they are not entitled to is special rights, the “right” to counterfeit marriage, to call something by a name that does not describe it.

      Too bad about your loathing for freedom, decency and normality. There will come a day when you will wish you had been on the side of those things instead of the side of darkness.

      • olguy

        Naw, I like freedom well enough. Decency, I try to respect folks and treat them like I would wish to be treated, I think of that as decency. Normality, well that’s kinda subjective. One of the things I like about this country is that my normal doesn’t have to coincide with yours. As for me goin’ to the bad place, at least you have the satisfaction of having warned me.
        You won’t stop change. It happens.

        • Bob Ellis

          Actually, your comments here demonstrate that you have contempt for freedom, decency and normality.

          And no, one of them are subjective at all. They are concrete states of being, based and dependent upon the transcendent values that founded this nation. None of them can exist in the lawless environment for which you profess fondness.

          Yes, change happens, both for good and for bad. And sooner or later, the bad change you advocate will be stopped. The question is, how many people will suffer in the meantime, and how much freedom will be trampled in the meantime.

          • olguy

            Okie doke.

        • DCM7

          “Normal” isn’t really all that subjective. People just want to think that it is so that they can include various things under the heading of “normal” that don’t really belong there. “Not normal” is a tough thing to face in oneself.

          • olguy

            Well, I guess we just disagree. What is normal in one culture may seem quite abnormal elsewhere. The toughness of facing ones “abnormality” may have more to do with the derision and guilt laid at their doorstep by the normal folks who are not secure enough in their own normality to allow other folks to be who they are.
            I may be wrong, but I’m guessin’ you believe in a god of some sort that created this whole mess. Why would such a god create Bonobo monkeys? They pretty much run the whole gamut of what I’m thinkin’ you would deem perverse. Did he or she give them free will? Or is it part of their nature? Or are they satan’s spawn?

    • DCM7

      There are a couple of things about “equality” that don’t get discussed too much.

      The first thing is that there is no guarantee that genuinely equal treatment will satisfy everyone. For example, a college may have academic standards for admission that are equally applied to everyone. This will not satisfy the person who doesn’t meet those standards but wants special treatment based on their race. That person is not prepared for the responsibilities that come with equal treatment.

      The second thing is that no one can change the criteria for “equal treatment” in order to make it apply to them, in a way that does not apply to those they say they want to be treated equally to. If they can change the criteria in this way, the treatment ceases to be equal.

      If a black man wants to be able to use the same restroom as white men, he is asking for equal treatment.

      If a black man wants to be able to use “the restroom of his choice,” meaning the women’s room, he is asking for something other than equal treatment.

      If a black man wants to be able to marry a white woman, he is seeking to be treated equally to a white man.

      If a man says he wants the same “right to marriage” as other men, but the “person of his choice” is a child, a close relative, or another man, then he is asking for something other than equal treatment, because the other men he says he wants “equality” with neither have nor want such a right.

      • Bob Ellis

        Going points and illustrations all.

      • olguy

        Well, if you want to get picky, there’s no guarantee of anything in this life. I don’t think children will be allowed to consent to such a contract. Course in the olden times if a old dude with a hankerin’ for the 11 year old cutie livin’ down the road, he could go talk with the cuties dad, pay a dowry, get hitched. Close relatives? That’s not normal, at least not anymore. If two guys or gals want to get hitched, no skin off my nose.

  • Donald Scott

    Thank you for the material, got a great laugh. Obviously your comments hold no legal water, especially your applause of the violation of a federal order. In fact, a state ignoring a legal federal order (which the Supreme Court has let stand) is so overtly illegal that it’s grounds for executive action. This time I doubt the army will have to be called into Alabama, but it would be perfectly reasonable for every probate judge who refuses to issue licences be jailed for contempt.

    • DCM7

      “your comments hold no legal water, especially your applause of the violation of a federal order”
      Typical: You respect the law, and demand that others respect it, when it lines up with your personal preferences, and ignore the concept that laws can be unjust when doing so suits you.

      • Bob Ellis

        Exactly. If Donald Scott were to try to be consistent, if he lived in the late 1850s, he would have insisted black Americans in the South were property and they should be forced to remain in the custody of their owners. After all, that was the edict of the federal government.

        Mr. Scott fails to acknowledge that in our fallen world, there are just laws and unfortunately sometimes there are unjust laws (not to mention unconstitutional and illegal edicts, like the one in this case issued by an oath-breaking member of the federal government). Good people have no moral obligation to obey unjust and illegal laws (as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrated). Of course, Mr. Scott fails to acknowledge this not so much because of ignorance as because of a hypocritical embrace of whatever will advance his agenda.